This is the kind of imbecile who runs around decrying my conclusions on other forums but makes up excuses not to sign up here:

Quote:

From: Magestorm Allgoode

I tried registering for your discussion board. However, due to the fact that "free" e-mail accounts have to pony up a $10 registration fee, I decided to send this via e-mail instead.

I am a horror writer, and part of the Raptorman board at http://raptorman.us Recently, we had a thread about Star Trek VS Star Wars, and your website was listed as a source.

I visited it, and found your measurements and estimations to be wildly overstated. In specific:

AOTC section-

Slave 1 Seismic ChargesUsing my own analysis of the footage, and simple physics, your estimate of 60-200 megatons is wildly off the mark. Because this disruption is in a planar direction, and not omnidirectional, MUCH less force would be needed to rip through asteroids in this fashion. To reach the 2km range, you'd barely even need a kiloton of force to do this kind of damage. Asteroids can be extremely friable, and a planar disruption would cause this friable rock to burst apart.

Slave 1 midship guns

Again, 2 kilotons is a wild estimate. Against natural friable asteroids, you'd just need conventional sized explosions to take out an asteroid 2-3 times larger than the fighter getting shot at.

Slave 1 missiles

Estimated at 190 megatons. Doubtful in the least. Looking over the explosion and the damage from this, I would put the explosion no larger than 1 KT, and that is overestmation. Remember, as these rocks are usually fragile and friable, it doesn't take a horrendous ammount of force to shatter one if put in the right place.

Also of note is Joules and Watts getting mixed around, and directed energy weapons getting classified as megaton and gigaton class weapons, when all energy weapons are measured in watts, not megatons.

Consider the Real life physics, and apply them to the matters at hand here.

Little Boy specs: Yield-13KT (Yes, Kilotons)

Blast overpressure: 12PSI (greater than 5PSI overpressure from an explosion is sufficient to topple buildings)

And we all know what kind of damage that caused.

Modern nuke missiles have a range from 100 KT to 1.5 MT. The largest weaopon ever tested was a 50 megaton weapon. The 50 MT bomb was powerful enough to give 3rd degree burns at 100KM (60 miles aprox) and was felt and seen from 1000KM (600 miles aprox)

A GIGATON nuke would not only be horrendously huge, it would devistate an entire planet with one shot.

Now, we know that a megaton is the equivalant of 4.18x10[15th power] Joules (J)

Therefore, a fusion warhead from a 1 gigaton nuke would be horrednously huge, as it takes 6.25 KG to cause 1 Megaton of explosion. at 1,000 megatons, that is aproximately a warhead holding 6,250 KG of deteurium. Not only would the warhead itself be massive, but the engine for this would have to be equally massive.

If you are going off of the Incredible Cross section books, I would seriously review their ratings against actual science, and see that they are merely throwing wild estimates, not actual reproduceable figures.

Yeah, with quality arguments like this, I'm suuuure he can't come up with a non-anonymized E-mail address.

I replied thusly:

Quote:

On Friday 17 December 2004 10:05 pm, you wrote:

Quote:

I tried registering for your discussion board. However, due to the fact that "free" e-mail accounts have to pony up a $10 registration fee, I decided to send this via e-mail instead.

I am a horror writer, and part of the Raptorman board at http://raptorman.us Recently, we had a thread about Star Trek VS Star Wars, and your website was listed as a source.

I visited it, and found your measurements and estimations to be wildlyoverstated. In specific:

AOTC section-

Slave 1 Seismic ChargesUsing my own analysis of the footage, and simple physics, your estimate of 60-200 megatons is wildly off the mark. Because this disruption is in a planar direction, and not omnidirectional, MUCH less force would be needed to rip through asteroids in this fashion. To reach the 2km range, you'd barely even need a kiloton of force to do this kind of damage. Asteroids can be extremely friable, and a planar disruption would cause this friable rock to burst apart.

And what do you base this claim upon, other than your own authority? These rocks are clearly well-consolidated; did that occur to you? And did it occur to you that the planar nature of the charge does not mitigate the fragmentation energy since the asteroids did not merely split in two, but were shattered?

Quote:

Slave 1 midship guns

Again, 2 kilotons is a wild estimate. Against natural friable asteroids, you'd just need conventional sized explosions to take out an asteroid 2-3 times larger than the fighter getting shot at.

What are these "natural friable asteroids" made of? According to NASA, there are many classes of asteroids, and light-coloured hard-consolidated ones such as those we saw are not of the easily crumbled variety. Why should I believe you over NASA?

Quote:

Slave 1 missiles

Estimated at 190 megatons. Doubtful in the least. Looking over the explosion and the damage from this, I would put the explosion no larger than 1 KT, and that is overestmation. Remember, as these rocks are usually fragile and friable, it doesn't take a horrendous ammount of force to shatter one if put in the right place.

See above. This "all asteroids crumble like Oreo cookies" mantra of yours is getting rather repetitive, and it is not supported by any real source other than your own say-so.

Quote:

Also of note is Joules and Watts getting mixed around, and directed energy weapons getting classified as megaton and gigaton class weapons, when all energy weapons are measured in watts, not megatons.

Megatons and gigatons are units of energy, dumb-ass.

Quote:

Consider the Real life physics, and apply them to the matters at hand here.

I have, unlike you.

Quote:

Little Boy specs:Yield-13KT (Yes, Kilotons)

Blast overpressure: 12PSI (greater than 5PSI overpressure from an explosion is sufficient to topple buildings)

And we all know what kind of damage that caused.

You DO realize that blast overpressure is a phenomenon which is entirely caused by atmospheric interaction with the radiation produced by the nuke, don't you? And that this would not apply to an energy weapon in space? For someone who says "consider the real life physics", you don't appear to know any.

Quote:

Modern nuke missiles have a range from 100 KT to 1.5 MT. The largest weaopon ever tested was a 50 megaton weapon. The 50 MT bomb was powerful enough to give 3rd degree burns at 100KM (60 miles aprox) and was felt and seen from 1000KM (600 miles aprox)

See above.

Quote:

A GIGATON nuke would not only be horrendously huge, it would devistate an entire planet with one shot.

Bullshit. Numerous volcano eruptions in the past have exceeded the gigaton level, and the so-called "dino killer" asteroid was estimated at roughly 100 million megatons, ie- 1E5 gigatons.

Quote:

Now, we know that a megaton is the equivalant of 4.18x10[15th power] Joules (J)

Therefore, a fusion warhead from a 1 gigaton nuke would be horrednously huge, as it takes 6.25 KG to cause 1 Megaton of explosion. at 1,000 megatons, that is aproximately a warhead holding 6,250 KG of deteurium. Not only would the warhead itself be massive, but the engine for this would have to be equally massive.

The fact that these are NOT fusion bombs does not occur to you?

Quote:

If you are going off of the Incredible Cross section books, I would seriously review their ratings against actual science, and see that they are merely throwing wild estimates, not actual reproduceable figures.

And you base this statement on ... what? Your personal say-so? The personal authority of someone ignorant enough to think that it's somehow unscientific to rate energy weapons using a unit of energy, who thinks that blast overpressure should apply in space, and who thinks that a 1 gigaton explosion [will devastate] an entire planet? Why should I take any of your claims seriously, when they are backed up with nothing but the aforementioned flimsy personal authority?

"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

He responded today (notice the distinct lack of point-by-point rebuttal):

Magestorm Allgoode wrote:

Actually, I am basing this off of physics. Sources include NASA, JPL,Wikipedia, and the CERN websites.

To produce a gigaton of force in a small area like you are claimingwould cause a secondary thermonuclear reaction in the target vehicle. As far as asteroids being friable, that is shown with the pattern ofthe asteroids shattering in AOTC.

Megatons are a measurement in explosive force, in the equivalent ofhow many tons of TNT would be needed to create the same size ofdestruction. So, One million tons of TNT would be one megaton. So,comparing a directed energy weapon, which is measured in wattage,would NEVER be rated in megatons of damage.

Your reasoning that the blast force would be different in space isunreasonable in the extreme. If you have an explosion, even in space,there would be a localized area of overpressure from the explosion,from the blast.

A blast from a 50 megaton nuke would create a blast zone ofaproximately 25 km, and have thermal effects as far as 100km.

A gigaton weapon would be 20 times that, creating a blast aproximately500km, and cause thermal effects as far as 2000km. This would be aworldkiller event, causing worldwide effects.

The fact that you use personal attacks along with your argument tellsme you are not even interested in facts, but are taking incorrectfigures and respouting them, without any real analysis.

So, if that is how you truely are going to behave, then that is fine. I never once made any comment about you or your intelligence, merelythat the figures simply did not hold up to proven scientific theorim. Personally, I feel that the estimates you have on your site areextremely over what they are observable. I am basing my facts andfigures from my personal observations of the movie, as well as actualscience.

I responded thusly:

I wrote:

Magestorm Allgoode wrote:

Actually, I am basing this off of physics. Sources include NASA, JPL, Wikipedia, and the CERN websites.

I notice a distinct lack of "my own professional qualifications in physics" in that list. I guess I'm dealing with another "self-taught through Google" science expert. You clowns are a dime a dozen, do you know that?

Quote:

To produce a gigaton of force in a small area like you are claiming would cause a secondary thermonuclear reaction in the target vehicle.

LOL! You think that a piece of iron will undergo a "secondary thermonuclear reaction"? Where did you learn science? Sesame street? A thermonuclear reaction is caused by a fission explosion interacting with fusion fuels, dumb-ass. You can't make any arbitrary object undergo a thermonuclear reaction by setting off a large blast in it.

Quote:

As far as asteroids being friable, that is shown with the pattern of the asteroids shattering in AOTC.

"Circular logic" fallacy. Try again.

Quote:

Megatons are a measurement in explosive force, in the equivalent of how many tons of TNT would be needed to create the same size of destruction. So, One million tons of TNT would be one megaton. So, comparing a directed energy weapon, which is measured in wattage, would NEVER be rated in megatons of damage.

Wrong. Megatons are a measurement in energy, moron. And any directed energy weapon with a defined pulse length CAN be measured in terms of energy; you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do you realize that energy is just power multiplied by time? Or did your grade 8 teacher not explain that to you yet? Maybe you should ask him on Monday when you show up for class.

Quote:

Your reasoning that the blast force would be different in space is unreasonable in the extreme. If you have an explosion, even in space,there would be a localized area of overpressure from the explosion, from the blast.

Wrong. Blast overpressure is an ATMOSPHERIC phemonenon, moron. What do you think the blast wave is composed of? Oh yeah, it's AIR.

Quote:

A blast from a 50 megaton nuke would create a blast zone of aproximately 25 km, and have thermal effects as far as 100km.

Not in vacuum.

Quote:

A gigaton weapon would be 20 times that, creating a blast aproximately 500km, and cause thermal effects as far as 2000km. This would be a worldkiller event, causing worldwide effects.

LOL! You don't even know how scaling laws work, do you? You honestly think that a nuclear weapon which is twice as powerful will create a blast radius twice as large? Do you understand that blast effects follow non-linear scaling laws? Or that the volume and area of a sphere grow at the cube and square of its radius, respectively? I see that we can add simple geometry to the list of things you don't understand, never mind the fact that blast effects will not exist in vacuum and a 5psi overpressure is utterly inadequate to shatter a well-consolidated piece of rock.

Quote:

The fact that you use personal attacks along with your argument tells me you are not even interested in facts, but are taking incorrect figures and respouting them, without any real analysis.

"Style over substance" fallacy. I have explained in some detail what is wrong with every one of your claims, and you respond by simply repeating yourself and pretending that my comments on your obvious ignorance of the subject matter somehow give you an excuse to ignore my rebuttal.

Quote:

So, if that is how you truely are going to behave, then that is fine. I never once made any comment about you or your intelligence, merely that the figures simply did not hold up to proven scientific theorim.

A statement which was wrong, and whose flaws were pointed out, to which you had no response other than to repeat yourself. Your lack of intelligence is not just an insult; it is clearly a fact. No intelligent person responds to a rebuttal of his claim by simply repeating it.

Quote:

Personally, I feel that the estimates you have on your site are extremely over what they are observable. I am basing my facts and figures from my personal observations of the movie, as well as actual science.

No, you are not. You repeatedly invoke the word "science" as if it is a magic talisman, when you have clearly demonstrated that you have no knowledge whatsoever of it. I would be surprised if you have even graduated high school, given that you performed an incredibly simple-minded linear scaling of nuclear blast effects. You are a classic example of what is wrong with so many sci-fi fans; you actually seem to think you are qualified to discuss matters of real science because you've watched a lot of movies and surfed the Internet, when it is clear that you actually haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Honestly, there's so much stupid material in his posts that I could have picked apart other mistakes and written longer rebuttals, but he's just not worth the bother.

"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

Actually, I am basing this off of physics. Sources include NASA, JPL, Wikipedia, and the CERN websites.

Wikipedia?! Isn't that the encyclopedia where anyone can write whatever they want for the definition a term?!

This is the same guy who admonishes me for not employing physics while demonstrating that he doesn't even understand ridiculously basic principles such as inverse-square or volumetric scaling laws.

I know, I just found that little tidbit to be really amusing. What's he going to quote as a scientific source next? Somebody's personal blog?

I find it amazing though, even with his other sources, how he's so vague. Sources inside of NASA, CERN websites, blah blah blah, yet doesn't provide even one URL. As if his word should just be taken for it.

That's a definite sign that he knows he's bullshitting. Or that he's an idiot... Probably both.

-- Dillon

"[Republican Senator James Inhoffe] thinks global warming is debunked every time he drinks a Slushie and gets a brain freeze." -- Jon Stewart

I would like to know what this guy has been smoking, since it must some bad stuff. I had better knowledge on science when I was on 9th grade. I mean this guy doesn't seem to know that W=J/s, but still think he's some kind of science expert . And the "argument" that you can't mega- or gigatons as unit of energy as they are unit explosive energy. I gues this guy thinks that blow a block of TNT every time measure a yeld of a bomb instead using the defenation that is in (suprise) Joules.

Keep up the good work Mike.

I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

Joined: 2002-09-24 01:48pmPosts: 27779Location: DC...looking up from the gutters to the stars

Nice work there, Mike. and honestly I always love when you show us another fun fan of you idiot brigade.

Truly these people are just on new levels of nitpicking and dumb. They want to find some one pivotal point wherein it shatter your entire argument not realizing that there is no such thing since you didn't make your argument on one pivotal point...unless they think "The Empire is better." is a single point .

MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!

Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all

Actually, I am basing this off of physics. Sources include NASA, JPL,Wikipedia, and the CERN websites.

To produce a gigaton of force in a small area like you are claimingwould cause a secondary thermonuclear reaction in the target vehicle. As far as asteroids being friable, that is shown with the pattern ofthe asteroids shattering in AOTC.

Megatons are a measurement in explosive force, in the equivalent ofhow many tons of TNT would be needed to create the same size ofdestruction. So, One million tons of TNT would be one megaton. So,comparing a directed energy weapon, which is measured in wattage,would NEVER be rated in megatons of damage.

I guess he's right. Since megatons is TNT-equivalent, it's only applicable for TNT-based destruction. So, the length of my penis, which is measured in *kilograms*, would NEVER be rated in centimeters of length.

To produce a gigaton of force in a small area like you are claiming would cause a secondary thermonuclear reaction in the target vehicle.

The bit about causing a thermonuclear reaction in Iron reminds me of The Adam Warlock, who claimed that neutron beams could induce the "super-dense" Imperial warship hulls to undergo nuclear fission (as if Imperial hulls are made of weapons-grade plutonium) I wonder if there is a relation?

"Gigaton of force" also reminds me of Virus-X confusing velocity and acceleration (since Gigatons are a measure of energy, not force)

"everytime a person is born the Earth weighs just a little more."--DMJ on StarTrek.com
"You see now you are using your thinking and that is not a good thing!" DMJay on StarTrek.com

"Watching Sarli argue with Vympel, Stas, Schatten and the others is as bizarre as the idea of the 40-year-old Virgin telling Hugh Hefner that Hef knows nothing about pussy, and that he is the expert."--Elfdart

Megatons are a measurement in explosive force, in the equivalent of how many tons of TNT would be needed to create the same size of destruction. So, One million tons of TNT would be one megaton. So, comparing a directed energy weapon, which is measured in wattage, would NEVER be rated in megatons of damage.

Explosive "force" eh? No relation between energy and power, huh?

Quote:

Now, we know that a megaton is the equivalant of 4.18x10[15th power] Joules (J)

Therefore, a fusion warhead from a 1 gigaton nuke would be horrednously huge, as it takes 6.25 KG to cause 1 Megaton of explosion. at 1,000 megatons, that is aproximately a warhead holding 6,250 KG of deteurium. Not only would the warhead itself be massive, but the engine for this would have to be equally massive.

Can't you just see him desperately leafing through various volumes of his dad's copy of Brittanica?

This constant nonsense about fusion reminds me of a "debate" I had with a trektard who claimed that SW reactors couldn't possibly have such a level of power because they were clearly fusion.

"Why do you claim this?" I asked.

"Because it says here the reactor is like a small star," came the reply.

"That's a measure of it's power, genius."

"Well, it says 'like a small star', stars use fusion, so it's fusion."

"Oh, I see. And if you buy a 200 horsepower car and open the hood, do you expect to see a shitload of horses in there? Oh, sorry. There is only room for one horse, isn't there? So it can't have 200 hp, can it?"

"That's not the same! You're stupid!"

Honestly, how does one talk to these people?

CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron

TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet

And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- CovenantDead cows don't fart. -- CJvR...and I like strudel! -- Asuka

But he's a horror writer on a forum that doesn't work, well for me it's a broken link. How can his word not possibly be taken as fact . The best part is he seems so confident of his argument, he'll keep trying to explain his bad science over and over it's hilarious.

But he's a horror writer on a forum that doesn't work, well for me it's a broken link. How can his word not possibly be taken as fact . The best part is he seems so confident of his argument, he'll keep trying to explain his bad science over and over it's hilarious.

This combination of ignorance and arrogance that comes from Net-based science education is, sadly, quite common. These idiots honestly seem to believe that a university education in science or engineering takes YEARS for no fucking reason, because they think you can become an expert after a bit of Web surfing.

"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

It's pathetic that someone who has less knowledge of science than I had before I hit high school is trying to talk like an expert. Thanks for sharing Mike, its both enlightening and entertaining to know some of the shit you have to deal with.

The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.

Friable asteroids and induced nuclear detonations in stable matter.. funny, I think he's graduated from SDI. These guys need a refresher in conservation of energy. I seem to recall it was part of high school physics.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum